10 replies to this topic

[Shannon Vyff]

It is sad to see a site claiming they can sell you Immortality, when all of us here know full well that we are struggling to get the actual science of how we can someday attain it-publicized and accepted.

At http://www.fastspells.com/ , you can buy a "custom crafted" spell that "casting will allow you to live a life of infinite age, never to die of natural causes," but they point out that it is best to use the immortality spell with a "youth spell" so to "avoid an embarrassing appearance". Oh and "If you are already beyond your desired age, you will grow backwards, to achieve your desired youth-appearance." Each spell only costs $349.00. The "No More Cancer" spell is apparently easier to cast as its standard level is only $39.00 and the premium level is still only $265.00.

Does anyone really buy these? Could it possibly be legal in the same way that psychics are legal--because people have the right to believe in them? Or would this site be regulated under the false advertising laws?

There any many fly-by-night web sites out there in various areas, and law enforcement is overwhelmed with investigating and prosecuting the ones that are more hurtful to society...

[forever freedom]

This should be illegal...

[lightowl]

Hahahahaha... well, they DO offer a 100% money back guarantee.

If these kinds of tricksters where not so abundant, people would probably be easier to fool just by lack of experience. I'd say its perfectly harmless, unless you are a complete fool and have enough money to waste. If you are either not a fool or don't have money to waste, you probably wont buy into these fast spells anyway. Hopefully.

There are also plenty of things on the borderline of questionable products out there. Who are to decide what should be banned? Its almost like free speech in a sense. Your word is only worth whatever attention it is given. For example, what makes some perfumes excessively more expensive than others? We can all probably agree that they wont, by them selves, provide the desired effect.

Honestly, if these spells should be banned, most any religion should be banned from taking money from their followers. Religions are even worse in a sense, because they offer unlimited happiness, bliss and eternal life after death, while at the same time warning that hell (or some equivalent punishment) will ensue if you do not comply. And if we ban religion from soliciting money, what other organizations should we ban next. Anything that just sounds too weird to be true? Hey, lets ban science too, that's just too damn weird and unintuitive to be allowed to take money from people.

Edited by lightowl, 14 July 2008 - 04:19 AM.

[forever freedom]

Hahahahaha... well, they DO offer a 100% money back guarantee.

If these kinds of tricksters where not so abundant, people would probably be easier to fool just by lack of experience. I'd say its perfectly harmless, unless you are a complete fool and have enough money to waste. If you are either not a fool or don't have money to waste, you probably wont buy into these fast spells anyway. Hopefully.

There are also plenty of things on the borderline of questionable products out there. Who are to decide what should be banned? Its almost like free speech in a sense. Your word is only worth whatever attention it is given. For example, what makes some perfumes excessively more expensive than others? We can all probably agree that they wont, by them selves, provide the desired effect.

Honestly, if these spells should be banned, most any religion should be banned from taking money from their followers. Religions are even worse in a sense, because they offer unlimited happiness, bliss and eternal life after death, while at the same time warning that hell (or some equivalent punishment) will ensue if you do not comply. And if we ban religion from soliciting money, what other organizations should we ban next. Anything that just sounds too weird to be true? Hey, lets ban science too, that's just too damn weird and unintuitive to be allowed to take money from people.

well in a perfect world religion WOULD be banned

as for science i'm aware that you were just jking but science is completely different from religion or this spell stuff..

but i get your point, and i changed my mind, i mean, if the fools want to spend some money thinking that they will automatically make their lives better, it's ultimately their own fault and not the snakeoil salesman's.

Edited by sam988, 14 July 2008 - 05:16 AM.

[lightowl]

but science is completely different from religion or this spell stuff..

Yep. My point was that those who decide what to ban might be of a different opinion, and that would be very bad. I would much rather give religion as much right to exist as science, than risk banning both. Banning is often a very slippery slope.

[niner]

but science is completely different from religion or this spell stuff..

Yep. My point was that those who decide what to ban might be of a different opinion, and that would be very bad. I would much rather give religion as much right to exist as science, than risk banning both. Banning is often a very slippery slope.

Then shouldn't we also unban all the other stuff that's currently banned, like drugs, porn, smoking in restaurants, running stop signs, and murdering people?

[lightowl]

Then shouldn't we also unban all the other stuff that's currently banned, like drugs, porn, smoking in restaurants, running stop signs, and murdering people?

Probably most of it, but not all. My comments where directed, at banning people, from receiving money for their services. If those services are a violation of laws in general, then they should be stopped. Regarding laws in general. I believe too many laws is problematic, both in the sense that they complicate life so much as to stomp personal and general development, and also in the sense that many new laws are designed to bring fortune to some, while taking away fortune from others.

When nationalists are in power, some create laws to divide the world and separate poor from rich. Take for example copyright laws. It has been proposed to make it punishable by prison, in Denmark, if you buy illegal imitations of copyrighted products from foreign countries. Those laws are obviously designed to protect businesses in the rich countries. The consequence is that poor countries are unable to sell their products, thereby expanding the gab between rich and poor. In a sense the rich are being "encouraged" to use their money to buy products from the rich. While clearly the moral thing to do, is to buy the imitations from the poor.

Those kinds of laws are rapidly being developed, because they are a tool for governments, to advance their own agenda in the global markets.

[lightowl]

murdering people

Humanitarian Law is the most sane law developed, IMO. We should cherish the fact that they are still impartial and indifferent to nationality, race, religion and economic status.

[niner]

Then shouldn't we also unban all the other stuff that's currently banned, like drugs, porn, smoking in restaurants, running stop signs, and murdering people?

Probably most of it, but not all. My comments where directed, at banning people, from receiving money for their services. If those services are a violation of laws in general, then they should be stopped. Regarding laws in general. I believe too many laws is problematic, both in the sense that they complicate life so much as to stomp personal and general development, and also in the sense that many new laws are designed to bring fortune to some, while taking away fortune from others.

When nationalists are in power, some create laws to divide the world and separate poor from rich. Take for example copyright laws. It has been proposed to make it punishable by prison, in Denmark, if you buy illegal imitations of copyrighted products from foreign countries. Those laws are obviously designed to protect businesses in the rich countries. The consequence is that poor countries are unable to sell their products, thereby expanding the gab between rich and poor. In a sense the rich are being "encouraged" to use their money to buy products from the rich. While clearly the moral thing to do, is to buy the imitations from the poor.

Those kinds of laws are rapidly being developed, because they are a tool for governments, to advance their own agenda in the global markets.

So you agree that laws against murder are good. Is it safe to say that laws preventing the harming of other people are good in general? If you don't enforce intellectual property laws like patents, trademarks, and copyrights, then the people who worked and invested to create the intellectual property in the first place are harmed because they aren't getting a return on their work or investment. Without IP law, we would have far less investment in R&D or in the production of entertainment. The moral thing to do is not to buy cheap knockoffs from the poor, it's for the poor to do something useful that people want, and making sure that there are not trade barriers in place that keep them from selling them.

[lightowl]

So you agree that laws against murder are good. Is it safe to say that laws preventing the harming of other people are good in general? If you don't enforce intellectual property laws like patents, trademarks, and copyrights, then the people who worked and invested to create the intellectual property in the first place are harmed because they aren't getting a return on their work or investment.

It depends on where you place the bar for economic harm. The world is not so black and white. Consider the fact that half the worlds people are living of less than $2 per day. 2/3 of those live on less than $1 per day. Should "harming" already relatively wealthy investors on their wallet be considered a crime? Not in my opinion. People who have enough money, so as to put some into monetary investments, are already far better off than the poor in this world.

Without IP law, we would have far less investment in R&D or in the production of entertainment.

This is true in some cases, but in most cases it is basically a mechanism to separate the worlds economies. There are some products that require massive amounts of investments, but most consumer products do not. These laws that protect designer clothing and furniture, for example, are completely distorting the value of basic products. I think it is counterproductive to believe that copyright is necessary and useful to the world in all aspects. There are special considerations that should be made, and I believe at some point rich countries will realize that, if they indeed intend to lessen poverty.

Regarding entertainment. I doubt the world would be much worse off without those who demand IP rights on entertainment. The world is so hungry for entertainment that there are plenty of opportunities to sell products without having to own digital distribution rights. I suspect the coming years will show that commercial interests will start paying for a larger part (if not most) of entertainment production. There are other business models that do not require special law protection to function. There are also plenty of people out there who actually enjoy entertaining people for free. Entertainment does not have to be a business to have a place in society. Quality of entertainment is highly subjective.

The moral thing to do is not to buy cheap knockoffs from the poor, it's for the poor to do something useful that people want, and making sure that there are not trade barriers in place that keep them from selling them.

This assumes that poor producers have the resources to develop and protect their own IP. In many cases these products are produced out of necessity. Also, in many cases the products are almost as good a quality as the "original" produced, simply because the originals are produced by the exact same people in the exact same places. The people who make the overpriced products for sale in rich economy stores do not receive any of the surplus guarantied by the property protection. All those surpluses goes to investors who only care about their bottom line. In fact those who actually design and produce the products get very little in return. Its the companies that own the IP that get richer. If these dynamics are not taken into consideration, it is hard to realize what is moral.

http://www.globaliss...lated/Facts.asp

EDIT: Added link.

Edited by lightowl, 15 July 2008 - 09:05 AM.

[lightowl]

Mods, I suggest splitting this topic, if the other participants agree.